By the way, is there any other scheduler (other than SH) by which we can deterministically forward the client connections to the back end real servers? I mean connection from client1 should go to real server 1..etc.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM, krishna prasad <krishna.sirig...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:32:16AM -0500, Khosrow Ebrahimpour wrote: >> > Hi Krishna, >> > >> > On Monday, February 27, 2012 08:08:13 am krishna prasad wrote: >> > > Dear All, >> > > If the director is configured with Source Hashing scheduling >> algorithm, >> > > the connections are distributed among the back end real servers >> through >> > > looking up a statically assigned hash table by their source IP >> addresses. >> > > My question here is the key for the load balancing is the source IP >> alone >> > > or source IP plus port? >> > >> > I haven't used SH scheduling myself, but according to this article >> > http://kb.linuxvirtualserver.org/wiki/Source_Hashing_Scheduling only >> the >> > source IP is used. >> >> Yes, the SH scheduler only makes use of the source IP address and >> conversely the DH scheduler only makes use of the destination IP address. >> >> > Although I am curious why the hash wouldn't use source IP + Port. >> Otherwise, >> > clients coming from behind a NAT or proxy will all end up on the same >> > realserver. >> >> I believe that the motivation for the DH scheduler was for use with >> load-balanced caching proxy servers. The SH scheduler is intended >> to be used in place of persistence in some situations where it is >> desirable to scheduler the same client to the same real-server. >> >> Clearly the presence of NAT can potentially result in a poor result >> when using SH. Likewise with persistence, which can provide some >> of the same behaviour. >> >> With regards to SH hashing on both the Source IP and port, I'm unclear >> of when this would be useful in place of for example WLC >> >> I agree that the original motivations of SH (and DH) may not needed to >> have IP+port hash; >> > But I strongly think that it it good to have IP+port hashing, for cases > where multiple clients run on single host, in this case > the connections have same IP but different port. In this case also the > same is desirable,i.e same client to the same real-server. > This may not make a real use case for web world, but a strong case for > non-web deployments like in telecom.I know LVS is increasingly used in > other than web services. > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: >> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ >> >> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org >> Send requests to lvs-users-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org >> or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users >> > > _______________________________________________ Please read the documentation before posting - it's available at: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/ LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@LinuxVirtualServer.org Send requests to lvs-users-requ...@linuxvirtualserver.org or go to http://lists.graemef.net/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
